OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.

- OpenAI's terms of use might apply but are largely unenforceable, they state.


Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to rapidly and cheaply train a design that's now almost as good.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a spokesperson called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our material" grounds, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI positioned this concern to professionals in technology law, who stated difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time showing an intellectual home or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it produces in response to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's because it's uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he said.

"There's a doctrine that states creative expression is copyrightable, however realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a big question in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always vulnerable realities," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are protected?

That's not likely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "reasonable use" exception to copyright security.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may return to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is reasonable use?'"

There may be a distinction in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a model" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a model into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz stated.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable use," he included.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a completing AI model.

"So perhaps that's the lawsuit you might potentially bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you gained from my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that most claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual property infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, experts said.

"You ought to understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design creator has actually attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for good factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains in part due to the fact that model outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted recourse," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally will not implement agreements not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in various nations, galgbtqhistoryproject.org each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another extremely complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, fraught procedure," Kortz included.

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical steps to block repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with regular clients."

He added: "I do not think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable details from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away respond to a request for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to replicate advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.